Citizens engaging with a holographic city model, casting votes that fairly allocate resources.

Decoding Democracy: Can Digital Voting Systems Truly Represent Us?

Soraya Malik in Politics & Policy August 2025 • 4 min read.

"New research reveals the surprising ways digital voting platform design impacts fairness and legitimacy in participatory budgeting."

Imagine a city where every resident has a direct say in how public funds are spent. This isn't a futuristic fantasy, but a growing reality thanks to participatory budgeting (PB). Cities are increasingly turning to digital platforms to empower citizens, allowing them to propose and vote on projects that shape their communities. However, the choices cities make in designing these digital voting systems can have a profound impact on who participates, which projects get funded, and how fair the entire process is perceived.

Participatory budgeting has evolved from grassroots movements to a mainstream tool for democratic governance, with digital platforms now offering unprecedented opportunities for scale and inclusion. Yet, this transition isn't without its challenges. The digital divide, the complexity of choices, and a lack of trust in algorithms can all undermine the potential of digital PB. So, how can cities design digital voting systems that truly represent the will of their citizens and foster a sense of fairness and legitimacy?

New research from ETH Zürich, the University of Leeds, and other leading institutions is shedding light on this critical question. By examining voter behavior and preferences in a simulated PB environment, these researchers have uncovered valuable insights into how to design digital voting systems that minimize cognitive load, enhance perceived fairness, and promote more transparent and inclusive decision-making.

The Secret Language of Voting Systems: Input Formats & Their Impact

Citizens engaging with a holographic city model, casting votes that fairly allocate resources.

One of the most critical design choices in any digital voting system is the input format – the way voters express their preferences. Cities often use simple methods like approval voting, where citizens select as many projects as they like. However, recent studies suggest that more expressive formats, such as ranking projects or distributing points, may better capture voter preferences.

To investigate this, the researchers conducted a series of behavioral experiments where participants voted on fictional PB projects using six different input formats:

Select Any Number (SN): Standard approval voting.
Select 5 (S5): Approval voting with a limit of 5 projects.
Distribute 5 Points (D5): Voters allocate 5 points across projects.
Distribute 10 Points (D10): Voters allocate 10 points across projects.
Rank 5 (S5R): Voters rank their top 5 projects.
Select 5 and Distribute 10 (S5D10): Voters rank 5 projects and then allocate 10 points among them.

The results revealed clear preferences. Participants rated ranking and point-distribution formats as better at capturing their preferences, while approval voting was seen as the easiest to use. Interestingly, when asked which format they would recommend to a city, ranking 5 projects emerged as the clear favorite. This suggests that voters value the ability to express nuanced preferences, even if it requires a bit more effort. The study highlights the idea that citizens desire both clear instructions and the ability to express the granularity of their preferences.

Towards Fairer Systems: The Method of Equal Shares and Explaining Algorithmic Choices

The choice of voting aggregation rule – the method used to translate votes into winning projects – is just as important as the input format. While many cities use a simple "greedy" rule that selects projects with the most votes until the budget runs out, this approach can lead to skewed outcomes that favor popular projects and neglect the needs of smaller groups. Recent research suggests that the Method of Equal Shares (MES), which aims to distribute the budget more proportionally, can lead to fairer and more inclusive results. The findings offer actionable insights for digital governance, contributing to the development of fairer and more transparent digital systems and collective decision-making processes for citizens.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

Everything You Need To Know

What are some different ways digital voting systems allow citizens to express their preferences in participatory budgeting?

Digital voting systems use various input formats to allow citizens to express their preferences. These include 'Select Any Number (SN)' where voters can select as many projects as they like, 'Select 5 (S5)' which is approval voting limited to 5 projects, and methods like 'Distribute 5 Points (D5)' or 'Distribute 10 Points (D10)' where voters allocate points to projects. More expressive formats also exist, such as 'Rank 5 (S5R)' where voters rank their top 5 projects, and 'Select 5 and Distribute 10 (S5D10)' where voters rank 5 projects and then allocate 10 points among them. Each format influences how accurately voter preferences are captured and the perceived fairness of the process.

Why might a city consider using the 'Method of Equal Shares (MES)' instead of a simple "greedy" rule for participatory budgeting?

A city might consider using the 'Method of Equal Shares (MES)' because it aims to distribute the budget more proportionally than a simple "greedy" rule. A "greedy" rule often selects projects with the most votes until the budget runs out, which can lead to skewed outcomes favoring popular projects and neglecting the needs of smaller groups. The 'Method of Equal Shares (MES)' can lead to fairer and more inclusive results by ensuring a broader range of projects receive funding.

What does research suggest about voter preferences regarding different digital voting input formats?

Research indicates that voters generally prefer input formats that allow them to express nuanced preferences, such as ranking projects or distributing points. While approval voting methods like 'Select Any Number (SN)' are seen as easy to use, formats like 'Rank 5 (S5R)' are often favored because they better capture the granularity of voter preferences. Voters value both clear instructions and the ability to express the intensity of their preferences, leading to a preference for ranking methods when recommending a system to a city.

How can the design of digital voting systems impact the fairness and legitimacy of participatory budgeting?

The design of digital voting systems significantly impacts the fairness and legitimacy of participatory budgeting by influencing who participates, which projects get funded, and how fair the entire process is perceived. Factors such as the input format (e.g., 'Select Any Number (SN)', 'Distribute 5 Points (D5)', 'Rank 5 (S5R)') and the voting aggregation rule (e.g., "greedy" rule vs. 'Method of Equal Shares (MES)') can either enhance or undermine voter participation and trust. A poorly designed system can exacerbate the digital divide and lead to skewed outcomes, whereas a well-designed system promotes transparency and inclusivity.

What are the implications of the 'Method of Equal Shares (MES)' in digital governance, and how does it contribute to more transparent systems?

The 'Method of Equal Shares (MES)' has significant implications for digital governance by promoting fairer and more inclusive results in participatory budgeting. Unlike simple "greedy" rules that favor popular projects, the 'Method of Equal Shares (MES)' aims to distribute the budget more proportionally, ensuring that a broader range of projects receive funding and addressing the needs of smaller groups. This approach contributes to more transparent systems by providing a clear and equitable method for translating votes into project funding, thereby enhancing citizen trust and participation in collective decision-making processes. It offers actionable insights for developing digital systems that better reflect the will of the citizens.